[Coyoteman]

GIVEN the total lack of evidence for macroevolution or for any plausible mechanism for it...

Totally false. Sorry.

Here is some evidence for you, complete with a transitional (which the creationist websites claim doesn't exist). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[tomzz]

You're looking at that picture precisely the wrong way.

Recent DNA studies have eliminated the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor because the genetic gap is simply too wide, and the neanderthal was the closest thing to a modern human amongst the hominids. All other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal, and that includes homo ergaster and all the rest. Neanderthal DNA is described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee".

To be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something, and we could no more interbreed with neanderthals or any other hominids, than we could with horses or chickens. In fact the lack of crossbreeding was always a big mystery, and the DNA studies pretty much cleared the mystery up.